Skip to main content

About this Show

All In With Chris Hayes

News/Business. (2013) New.

Contains 4 quotes




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v787






U.s. 7, Us 7, Edward Snowden 6, Mr. Snowden 5, Melissa Harris Perry 5, Snowden 4, Fisa 4, Obama Administration 4, Ezra 3, Robert Gibbs 3, Shanghai 3, At&t 3, Spencer 3, Vladimir Putin 3, Nsa 3, Usaa 3, Spencer Ackerman 3, Angie 2, Zurich 2, Vietnam 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    All In With Chris Hayes    News/Business.  (2013) New.  

    August 9, 2013
    5:00 - 6:01pm PDT  

and support it with your donati donations. the memorial is a national non-profit that doesn't receive city, state or federal funding for its operations. that's "hardball" for now. thank you for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from washington. i'm ezra klein sitting in for the spectacular chris hayes. tonight on "all in" the day before his vacation, president obama holds a nearly hour-long press conference and makes some big news on the country's surveillance programs. also, tonight, the president defends obama care and slams republicans for hating on it but not having much of a plan of their own. and one of the most powerful women in the world is opening up about her very recent and surprising run-in with racism. i will tell you oprah winfrey's
incredible story. melissa harris perry will put it into context. all that is ahead. tonight we begin with president obama's news conference in which we took on obama care and the threat by some republicans to try to shut down the government over it when they have no alternative plan. we'll get to that soon. but one area where president obama was really engaged today was the issue of surveillance and the national debate that has arisen, particularly since edward snowden leaked classified information. the president today describing four steps he would take to make the nsa both more transparent and more accountability including working with congress to tighten the patriot act, making sure someone represents civil liberties concerns before the powerful and secretive surveillance courts. making public the legal rationale for the government's collection activities and other steps to be more transparent about the government's surveillance program. and forming a group of outside experts to review the government's intelligence and communication technologies. the president went on to describe the questions over the balance between national security and individual liberty
as a necessary debate, one we need to be having. and he said those on both sides of it are patriots. >> the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. they're patriots, and i believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country. this is how we're going to resolve differences in the united states, vigorous public debate guided by our constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws and with respect for the facts. >> what about the guy who kicked off that debate? is edward snowden a patriot? when the president was asked, he said, not so much. >> no, i don't think mr. snowden was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks, i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations
before mr. snowden made these leaks. the fact is that mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then like every american citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer, and make his case. i signed an executive order well before mr. snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community for the first time. so there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions. >> there is a tension here. the white house says it believes in this debate. it believes in the reforms the debate has made possible but not big fans of edward snowden. president obama said we could have and probably would have ended up in the exact same place without him, but to you remember this moment from march?
>> what i wanted to see is if you can give me a yes or no answer to the question. does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not whitingly. there are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not whittingly. >> that is director of national intelligence, james clapper telling senator ron wyden back in march that the obama administration is not collecting data. not collecting data on millions of americans. that statement was, what's the word for it, a lie. clapper had to apologize, but not because the obama administration wanted a more robust debate and corrected him on television or privately the next day or next week or the next month. it was only after snowden's leaks that the obama administration, that clapper had to apologize. the obama administration has not been forthcoming on this debate.
they say they welcome. absent mr. snowden, it is hard to believe we would be having this debate at all. joining me now is liza goieden at the brennan center for justice. liza, thank you for being here tonight. >> my pleasure. thank you, ezra. >> let's begin with the president's policy announcement here. are the four steps, in your view, meaningful in terms of what they mean either for what the nsa is able to do or what we know about what they are doing? >> the devil is very much in the details on these four steps. the northea most significant step he announced that we know much about is the creation of an adversary process within the secret fisa court, the court that approves these surveillance programs and does so with only one party. that's the government appearing before it. and obama said he was willing to consider a system where there would be someone else there to leapt the other side, presumably the public interest. that could conceivably be an important step. the devil is in the details in terms of how that person is
appointed. what information that person has access to. what cases that person could actual participate in. we'll have to see. then there was talk about changes to the patriot act, but that talk was entirely nonspecific. it's impossible to evaluate whether the president is contemplating any meaningful changes. >> one thing i was interested in in president obama's mention of changing the fisa court, one of the problems folks have identified, one of the problems you've talked about in some interviews is every one of the judges on it is appointed directly by the chief justice. at the moment that means all 11 justices or judges are appointed by chief justice john roberts. now, there's legislation in congress to actually diversify that process, so you wouldn't have the effect where the entire court reflects the makeup of whoever happens to be leading the supreme court at that particular moment. that, i thought, was notable that that was not one of the remedies that president obama endorsed here. it was something internal to the government that would change.
that there would be someone else at the table potentially arguing, but the actual composition of the court, who is on it, would not change. >> i actually think that that change would be less important than the change that the president did focus on which is the adversarial nature of the process because we can see looking at the fisa court's record during a time when its judges were appointed, were more diverse, shall we say, i'd lolly in terms of who appointed them, its record of granting government requests was similar to what it is now. so i think we can say that any time you have a secret court regardless of who is on that court that is evaluating a government national security-related request with no pushback from any other quarters or no transparency, you're going to see decisions slanted very much in the government's favor. that is what needs to change. but these are all issues of a process. what we didn't see was any willingness on the president's part to acknowledge or to concede that there may be
something inappropriate about the government collecting all americans' telephone records in order to find the tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those records that might actually relate to terrorism, nor do we see any explanation for why it's necessary to follow that approach. >> the argument president obama made today was there's been a lot of hype about these programs and there's been a lot of talk about the potential for abuses, but there hasn't actually been proof of abuses. and i think his argument, or his view on this, is that what we've seen here is fear and all that the government needs to do is to allay that fear to assure people that the government is doing what it needs to do, that there's not actually any wrong j wrongdoing. how confident are you that's true? >> i'm not confident it's true simply because i don't think we've had the kind of investigation you need to uncover seithese sorts of abuse. what we found out about the government's practices during the cold war, we found out because the church committee was
formed and dug deep and had subpoena power. have these powers been abused? i don't think we know. let's assume for the timebeing, it's true, they haven't been abused, we're only worried about possibly for abuse. i'm not comforted by president obama saying he's inside government, he's seen everybody who works on this program and everybody's trustworthy, so it's okay. president obama is not going to be in power four years from now. we don't know who will be in power four years, eight years, twelve years. when he tells me he trusts everyone in the intelligence community, he trusted edward snowden at one point, too. there are leerily people in the intelligence committee who violate their pledges who even to violate the law. if they're going it do that in order to leak information, they're just as likely to do it in order to invade privacy for some political or personal reason. >> liza goitein from the brennan center for justice. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank withdrew. >> joining me now, robert dibbs,
former press secretary for president obama. spencer ackerman, u.s. security editor for the "guardian," and mr. sanchez, fellow at the cato institute. robert, i wanted to begin with you. one of the fascinating things to me about the press conference was the certainty president obama had that these were necessary programs, and you think back to the campaign and the sort of, the aggressive civil liberty rhetoric you heard back then. what happens to an administration? what changes, if anything has changed, when you come in, you begin getting these briefings? do you think there's been a change in the way the obama administration treats civil liberties? >> i don't think there's been a change in the way they treat civil liberties. i think what you saw here today was what i've heard then-senator barack obama and a candidate in 2004 running for the u.s. senate say we needed somebody watching the watchers. so i don't think there's been a change in civil liberties. i think obviously when you're the commander in chief, and when
you get a sense and see all of what goes into these programs, and all of what they uncover in terms of terrorism leads, it presents a picture that you don't normally or wouldn't normally get unless you're intimately involved in the running of the program. so i think, obviously, your view becomes more nuanced as you become more informed about exactly what threads are out there, what threads you can pull and where they lead to potential terrorism suspects. >> spencer, you've been at the "guardian" quite intimately involved with the edward snowden leak, with the reporting on it, with divulging this information. do you think as a longtime national security reporter that we would be having this debate, we would have this information if not for snowden? >> absolutely not. i mean, the evidence of that is that we didn't. you know, it's not just administration officials like
jim clapper lying to congress, but it's also just the absolute silence about this throughout the entire administration. to make a quick point, something you didn't hear about in obama's press conference at all and didn't get from any of the documents released today is a recognition that the deputy director of the national security agency testified to last month which is that in not one case can the national security agency say definitively that the bulk phone records collection program they've put on all of our phone records -- >> they claimed a big success for the nsa. you don't think that actually qualifies? >> when the deputy director of the nsa testifies there are some ways that you should understand the program, that isn't necessarily related to its efficacy in stopping a terrorist plot, but helps with analysis of other stuff, it really does
raise the question in a lot of people's minds about how necessary this bulk collection really is. that's an issue you haven't seen the president address. it's an issue a lot of people in congress are very concerned about. >> julian, on the question of how the information got divulged, you've had an enormous growth in the u.s. security state since 2001. new efforts, plus technological and legal they have, the new capabilities are tremendous. are folks like snowden a necessary check on that? because without that, you're essentially hoping for the government to be significantly or sufficiently forthcoming to actually create enough checks and balances to make sure no abuse is going on. >> i think that's right. in much the same way as we recognize that the press stands outside the government, but in some sense is an integral part of a functioning democracy. the same can be said about whistleblowers. jefferson famously said he'd rather have, if forced to choose, he'd rather have a press without government, than government without press. whistleblowers in the same way
almost necessarily are outside the formal channels but are, in a way, a check and a guarantee that's absolutely essential. so just in the same way that, you know, the pentagon, the leak of the pentagon papers was a necessary factor in turning public opinion against the vietnam war. you know, certainly would never have happened through internal channels. i think the debate we're having now, and the fact that the public reaction to it has forced this move shows that this doesn't happen when the people, the secret keepers determine what is in the interest of national security for the public to know about. >> robert, isn't there a tension with the -- in president obama arguing this is a debate that the white house welcome, it believes it's important, that the civil libertarians and members of the intelligence community are patriots and at the same time being furious and saying snowden who helped kick much of it off and release much of this information isn't a patriot? >> i don't think there's an inherent tension. i mean, look, i agree with what's been said here. we would clearly not be having
nearly as vociferous a debate, nearly as detailed a set of procedures and policies that came out today were it not for this. but let's still be clear. leaking this type of information is illegal. right? when you gain a clearance to have access to this type of information, they take you into a room and all the pictures on the room are not of presidents and secretaries of states. they're of convicted spies. okay? you know the rules. right? my office, the press secretary's office, because it's a publicly trafficked office, and i had access to top secret and some compartmentalization above that, has a safe in the office. when i'm done reading that stuff, if i don't want it burned in the situation room, it goes into that safe, it gets logged in that i've put it in. so i think there's no doubt we are having this debate because of that. let's also be clear that
regardless, edward snowden broke laws that he swore to uphold. and look, i do think this is a very important debate and i think, quite frankly, what you saw today is really kind of the opening bid. right? we saw the amendment to defund the entire set of programs failed just narrowly in the house. i think that was sort of an indication to everybody that this was a way, way bigger debate that we were about to have, and i think that will occupy a significant amount of congress' time in the fall than we had thought probably a week or two before. and the polling clearly shows that even as people want to be safe from terrorism, there are concerns about privacy. so i think this is the beginning of, i think, what's going to occupy a lot of administration time. >> i want to talk about that next bid right when we get back.
the president had a couple things to get off his chest before he left on vacation.
like how republicans don't want 30 million americans to have health care insurance. and all oprah wanted to do was look at a nice handbag. why that's creating such an international controversy is coming up. office and you know what i walked out with? [ slurps ] [ dad ] a new passat. [ dad ] 0% apr. 60 months. done and done. [ dad ] in that driveway, is a german-engineered piece of awesome. that i got for 0% apr. good one, dad. thank you, dalton. [ male announcer ] it's the car you won't stop talking about. ever. hurry in to the volkswagen best. thing. ever. event. and get 0% apr for 60 months, now until september 3rd. that's the power of german engineering. folks have suffered from frequent heartburn. but getting heartburn and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.
it's true, we have a significant capabilities. what's also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world don't even think to do. refuse to show. and that includes, by the way, some of america's most vocal critics. we shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online under strict
guidelines and for narrow purposes, and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online. >> that was a president making an argument you'll hear from a lot of defenders of the nsa surveillance that just because u.s. can spy on americans it doesn't mean they do. that certainly doesn't mean they do without check. still with me, robert gibbs, former press secretary for president obama, spencer ackerman from the "guardian" newspaper and julian s sanchez from the cato institute. you had a big news break with details of an nsa loophole used to initiate much wider searches than people previously recognized was possible. >> this is something senator wyden has very, very obliquely hinted at for a year exists. he calls it the back door search loophole. to get a very complicated story narrowed down really, really distinctly, let's see if i can beat the clock on this. 702 provision in the 2008 bill.
it allows foreign communications, communications believed to be from frooreigner related to espionage, terrorism, to be collected not just the data about them but the conversations, themselves. inside that data, there's some subject because you're talking about such a huge pool and because of technological necessities, there are some americans' communications that are swept up in that as well. you've heard obama say both today and previously, well, we don't listen to americans' communications. we're not listening to your
phone calls, not reading your e-mails. some of that data is inside this so-called 702 series of databases and this loophole that we disclosed today that we sort of gave the evidence that senator wyden's been sort of nodding about and sort of indicating about shows that under certain conditions starting in 2011 the nsa was given the authority to search for u.s. person identifiers, clearing that database to find, perhaps, ezra klein, julian sanchez, robert gibbs and so on
and so forth within that database. this is something completely different from the way the administration, even over these last eight weeks have talked about their authorities. >> on those authorities, julian, one thing the administration did today was release a brief looking at the legal reasoning behind the nsa surveillance programs. you've read through it. were you comforted by it? do you think it made a clear case for why they have this authority and why it needs to be used? >> no, it reads like someone got high and mixed up a deepak
chopra book with their manual. >> so you didn't like it? >> i was not that impressed. >> so you didn't write it? >> well, no. to on a bunch of levels it's a mishmash of weird attempts to cite disanalogous cases from civil procedures or administrative investigations. it's legally an incredible mess, and it tries to make this really implausible argument, one that this whole database can be relevant, and the language in the statute is stuff that's r l
relevant to an investigation, and saying all of it is relevant to an investigative process that can be used in different future investigations at some point and that may be true, but it's not what the law says. and they also, i mean, this is a technical point, take something that's really clearly supposed to be a historical records order, you know, for stuff that already exists and argue that it can be used to kind of create an ongoing obligation to hand over records over time. everything else about electronic surveillance law on the intelligence side and on the criminal side makes no sense on that reading. so it's just a weird thing to justify something i think nobody believed was possible, you know, ten years ago when they passed this law. >> there's also a kind of subtle redefinition of what surveillance means that's lurking sort of betweens lines here. that you've heard from the nsa in recent weeks. and that's when does the surveillance occur? does it occur when they take your data or does it occur when
they look through your data? they've started to argue, the administration has, and you've heard this somewhat from obama today sort of between the lines that it only happens when they query the stuff they've already taken and have safeguards on that and it's limited. the problem with that is, and this is going to be mart of the debate going forward, is the patriot act they're deriving this authority from isn't about when you can analyze data, it's an when you can collect it. >> and robert, when you hear this debate, and you've been in these briefings and you know why the administration believes these things are necessary. do you think, well, the folks out here just don't understand, don't understand what we're up against, don't understand the danger, don't understand the responsibility. do you think this is a debate that's asymmetrical and people can't see why it's necessary or a debate that's being had fairly? >> yes. i think -- i think this is a debate that is important to have. i think this is a debate where some transparency is necessary to give people confidence about
how these programs are conducted. to give people confidence that just because verizon or at&t gives bulk data collection to somebody, and i think there will be a debate on who will hold that information in the fall. but just because they give that information and might use it later to track a cell phone call once we know a suspect in yemen or somalia or something like that, that that isn't used in away that is ultimately nefarious or that we're listening to every one of these conversations. i listen to some of these debates and i wonder if you listen to these, you would think we must have a million people working for the fbi because we're listening to 310 billion, or million people's phone conversations. now, if you make ten calls a day, and everybody makes ten calls a day, you'd have to employ hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people to listen to all these. and we need to have a debate that shows people here's what
we're doing, and here's what we're not doing and how it's conducted in a way that makes people safer. because regardless of where you stand on this debate, we have clearly gotten information based on cell phone records and calls and picked up clues on events that didn't happen because we stopped those events. >> this is really totally disingenuous. right? yes, phone records can be useful sometimes which is why you have traditionally a targeted authority, once you have a particular contact. you know, a particular number you think is associated with the terrorist, to get that person's phone records and maybe their associate's phone records. there was legislation obama supported in 2005 that would have said that's the limit. a suspected terrorist or spy and their associates, one hop away, not three hops away pulling in tens of thousands of people who have nothing to do with anything. then in a secondary database, do backdoor searches of.
none of the cases they've discussed, which by the way, often seem to involve funding, not plots, one case they tried to say was a plot, turned out the prosecutors who actually were involved in that case -- actually, no, there wasn't a specific not, this was another material support funding case. not a plot case. but there's never been any case made that they need a bulk database like this in any of the cases they've talked about. in every one of these cases, it would have been sufficient to get a more targeted search and this is a pattern we've seen again and again, with warrantless wiretapping, with fusion centers, saving lives, absolutely necessary. then a couple years later, when the inspector generals or the senate do a real inquiry with access to the classified information, oops, it turns out fusion centers never produced any useful information. oops, it turns out warrantless wiretapping was an incredibly limited utility, wasn't pivotal in the case as they said it was. you know, you have to wonder what they're overselling. >> let's be clear, ezra. at&t and verizon don't keep your records, right? so if you want to -- >> for two years. >> if you want to find somebody
and go backwards several years, how are you going to do that? you can't -- you have to have -- >> if you want to listen to the conversation from two years ago -- >> you have to have some -- you can't listen to a conversation in the past. you have to have some collectible data with which to trace those numbers. and here's why we need to have this debate because you just slammed together warrantless wiretapping and seven other things. there isn't warrantless wiretapping, right? you have to go through a fisa court, have to go -- you have to have now -- you have to have a warrant for that. >> 702 surveillance is still warrantless wiretapping. >> let's have a debate on what is happening, what is accurate. this notion, again, somehow that hundreds of thousands of people are listening to hundreds of millions of phone calls every day, it's simply not happening. >> spencer, i want to let you get in here. >> to some degree you're arguing against a meme here. the point i think is important to make, you heard president obama say abuses haven't occurred. there are lots of people who believe that the abuse is the
simple fact that the government is collecting all of this stuff in first place without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. then on the question of, you know, verizon, at&t, they don't hold the data for sufficient amount of time, for a terrorism investigations to look on back, you know, several years, which is an important point to raise. well, why not have had a debate several years ago when the obama administration realized that was the issue then go to congress and say, we need some legislation to compel the telecoms to do that, to compel isps and so forth to do that. that didn't happen. this occurred entirely in secret. this is occurred while the obama administration was either not talking about it or intelligence officials were sort of reassuring congress, particularly those who didn't have access to the intelligence, who weren't on the intelligence committees that it wasn't happening at all, or giving very, very limited and deac deacontextualized reasons to believe it was. this is a test of the administration's seriousness. >> look, i think in many ways, i
agree with the last part. we're having this debate because of what is out there and we now should have that debate about what makes sense to collect, when it makes sense to collect it, and, again, how we're going to watch those that collect that data and make sure it's used in reasonable ways. i think having this debate, again, whether or not it is either ill timed or should have been done two years ago, there's a lot of things we wish could have happened two years ago. i would have loved to have won powerball two years ago. but i think we're having that debate now and i think it's, look, i think it's an important debate. again, i think it's going to dominate a lot of what happens, and i think this is really just the beginning, what happened today, of what is going to happen in congress. when the president says let's redo section 215, that's, you know, that's sort of a -- that's a big deal. that's going to involve a lot of different scenarios and policies, and i think that could
be a pretty broad debate. >> i think what matters in terms of that is when they begin to open up section 2 15, which is a part of the patriot act that permits this, or the obama administration argues permits it, that actually does create the space to open up the bill and you have that debate now in congress to exactly your point, spencer. if there is now a mechanism, a sort of legislative vehicle that has been agreed upon by everybody that will be, it seems, the vehicle for the debate going forward. robert gibbs, spencer ackerman, julian sanchez. thank you all for being here tonight. it was good to have part of the debate here on the show. you know, the guy who is always criticizing things but doesn't ever have any better ideas, president obama called out republicans today for being that guy. that story is coming up. ss stor" "that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country."
"when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart" it guides you to a number that will change your it guides you to a number life: your sleep number setting. it even knows you by name. now it's easier than ever to experience deep, restful sleep with the sleep number bed's dualair technology. at the touch of a button, the sleep number bed adjusts to each person's ideal comfort and support.
and you'll only find it at a sleep number store. where right now our newest innovations are available with 48-month financing. sleep number. comfort individualized.
i think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail. their number one priority. the one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care. >> sometimes i wonder if they're really actually his friends. that was the president this afternoon hammering the republican party's single-minded on session with appealing obama care. an obsession, as he noted, that would have the practical effect
given they have no replacement of making sure 30 million people in this country do not have health care insurance. it was just part of his spirited defense of the law, specifically his decision to delay the mandate requirement until 2015. one that he argued a decision that could have, in another world, gone down very differently. >> in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to quote/unquote, obama care. >> that environment is one where the republican party dedicated itself to a full repeal of the health care law without any plan to put something in its place. >> at least they used to say, well, we're going to replace it with something better. there's not even a pretense they're going to replace it with something better. i've been hearing about the
replace thing for two years. now i just don't hear about it because basically they don't have an agenda to provide health insurance to people. >> and that's kind of the key part of this debate here, a little bit. joining me, josh barro, politics editor for "business insider." josh, what struck me so much about president obama's comments today is he kind of got out there and said, look, you can have the argument you want to have over obama care, but in terms of actual ideas for how to give a large number of americans health insurance, i'm kind of the only guy in the ring now. there's no real debate being had anymore. there's no debate over what is the best path forward. there's only debate about whether or not obama care will go forward. >> yeah, well i think, you know, the, i think the president laid this out the way he did because obama care is less popular than its components are and i think he's frustrated that he's in this situation where he passed this law in 2010. i think he envisioned his presidency allowing him to move on to other fights yet he's having basically the same fiscal policy and health care fights with republicans he was having
three years ago. i think he's trying to get the message through to the public that, look, this law contains things you think are popular and my opponents, while they're focusing on the unpopularity of the law, have nothing to offer as an alternative. i think it frustrates him that message hasn't gotten through more. >> there was a fascinating moment, and he talked about whether or not they want to get rid of the provision in the affordable care act that allows kids up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health care insurance. i was on twitter when he said that. i said a bunch of republicans in my feed say no republican wants to get rid of that. they agree with that. that was a telling moment. that's a concrete deliverable in the bill that's kicked in. come 2014, the bill begins giving a whole lot more people than that particular provision health care insurance and spend billions of dollars to give people health care insurance. it seems to me, as republicans are saying now, we'd never get rid of that, they're going to have to come and say we're not going to get rid of your actual health insurance. maybe there are things you want to do to obama care, but we're
not going to get rid of the tax credit you have that is keeping your family covered. that struck me as a real tell. >> two things are happening here. one is when republicans are asked about particular popular provisions of obama care can say we're not for repealing that. the repeals are not going to become law. they can talk loosely about what health policy might be like in a world where republicans were able to repeal the law. what i think is more telling is when they're asked about the exclusion for pre-existing conditions. republicans tend to say, well, we favor that part of obama care, too. the problem is if you have that without the surrounding components of bhaum caobama car would cause a death spiral in the insurance markets so you'd end up in a situation like in new york state where if you tell insurers they have to still insurance to anybody regardless of condition, then insurance plans start costing $15,000 and nobody can afford one. it's just another component of republican unseriousness about health care, but i think you're also hitting on a correct thing here which is that once parts of the law come into effect, and people start noticing that they're there, it becomes a lot
more difficult to repeal them. that's why republicans so desperately want the delay of the law, the new thing we're hearing out this week, for example, from grover norquist, no, don't defund obama care but insist on a one-year delay of the program. they know the politics of it are going to shift against them once people start getting insurance coverage through medicaid and the exchanges and see this as their last opportunity to stop the law. >> i think that's a great parsing of where the strategy is right now. josh barro from "business insider." thank you very much. >> we will be right back with #click3. vietnam in 1972. [ all ] fort benning, georgia in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve military members, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve.
hey! totally got it all!m!
don't forget your favorites, girls. hey girls! the good ol'days when we could eat as we wanted. yes, but we are not 18 anymore. sometimes if i eat as i used to my digestive system gets out of whack. it's not easy keeping it working as it should. it's easy if you enjoy an activia everyday. mmmm... delicious! with the exclusive probiotic bifidus regularis, activia helps regulate your digestive system. put a smile back in your day! ♪ activia ♪ dannon the last thing i want is to feel like someone is giving me a sales pitch, especially when it comes to my investments. you want a broker you can trust. a lot of guys at the other firms seemed more focused on selling than their clients. that's why i stopped working at my old brokerage and became a financial consultant with charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today.
coming up, oprah winfrey who is looming over my left shoulder here experiences in her words a handbag diss. melissa harris perry will be here to put the story into context for us ahead. but first, but first i want to share the three awesomest things on the internet today. we begin with extreme makeover shanghai edition. shanghai, china, is known as the fastest growing city in the world. don't believe me? well, this will help make the case. watch this shanghai of 1987
morph into the shanghai of today. these photographs taken 26 years apart show a rapidly growing cityscape changing from a drab seaport. 20 million call the city home today, up from the near 12 million. merely 12 million that lived there a quarter century ago. further proof that the future is now, my friends. the second awesomest thing on the internet today, a breathtaking new way to consider the planet. everyone loves time lapse videos and some of the most stunning time lapses are shot from space. take, for instance, these views from the international space station. the ever-changing vision from above the planet inspired a cartographer from michigan named john nelson to map out a zone time lapse view of the earth. with help from has za's visible earth website, he is able to compile 12 months of a year of satellite images to create this, animated depiction of the seasonal changes of the planet or as nelson calls it, a
breathing earth. a breathing earth. it really does look like it's breathing or some have commented it looks like it has a beating heart. nelson said he did it because it is comforting to him. in a time in which we see time lapse video of the polar icecaps melting before our eyes, comforting to us, too. hundreds of miles of above from breathing, pulsating mother earth. third awesomest thing. it used to be if you wanted a dose of user-controlled fighting robots you settled for the rock em sock em game, or vehicles resembling dust busters and roombas on steroids. that changed thanks to the new youtube channel, where the great tradition of fighting robots lives on. updated, of course, for 2013. the robots have getups and catchy names like afro-tack. they look like they could kick
butt. gone are the upper cuts of yesteryear. they throw down karate and combos we call mike tyson hitting. we may be a while from fighting robots like those in "pacific rim," but rest assured these guys can satisfy your craving for a bit of robot mayhem. find all the links for tonight's #click3 on our website allinwith yn i'm beth... and i'm michelle. and we own the paper cottage. it's a stationery and gifts store. anything we purchase for the paper cottage goes on our ink card. so you can manage your business expenses and access them online instantly with the game changing app from ink. we didn't get into business to spend time managing receipts, that's why we have ink. we like being in business because we like being creative, we like interacting with people.
so you have time to focus on the things you love. ink from chase. so you can. "do i really need to add downy every time?" and i say, "yes. you really do." [ sniffs ] just toss downy unstopables in before the wash. then pour downy infusions right in here for scented softness that helps reduce pilling, fading, static, plus fresh scents that last up to 12 weeks. that's as long as bears hibernate. sure, you could go without it, but do you really want to be that person? downy unstopables and downy infusions in every wash. you'll be unstopable.
and then another. and another. and if you do it. and your friends do it. and their friends do it... soon we'll be walking our way to awareness, support and an end to alzheimer's disease. and that? that would be big. grab your friends and family and start a team today. register at all your important legal matters in just minutes. protect your family... and launch your dreams. at we put the law on your side. bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire.
but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. it's just common sense. "stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park. i love it. i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen.
i would take you in my arms and would kiss you and apologize and tell you really, it was a misundersta misunderstanding and please forgive me and give switzerland a chance. >> that was a shop owner in zurich apologizing to a would-be customer after a sales assistant refused to sell her a bag. the incident is making international headlines because that would-be customer happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. oprah winfrey. oprah winfrey says a clerk at an upscale boutique wouldn't show her a $38,000 designer handbag. winfrey says she was alone and not wearing her trademark eyelashes but otherwise looked like, well, oprah, because, you know, she is oprah. unfortunately, that wasn't enough for miss winfrey to be able to purchase the bag she wanted. >> and i go into a store, which shall remain unnamed and i say to the woman, excuse me, may i
see that bag right above your head? and she says, to me, no. it's too expensive. and she refused to get it. she refused to get it. and she started to show me these other little bags and i said, one more time i tried, i said, but i really do just really want to see that one. and she said, oh, i don't. i don't want to hurt your feelings. and i said, okay. thank you so much. you're probably right. i can't afford it. and i walked out of the store. >> oprah's telling of the incident comes just weeks after the most powerful man in the world, barack obama, spoke at an impromptu press conference about incidents of racism that he has encountered including walking past cars and hearing the locks of the doors click. winfrey says she still encounters prejudice in her daily life, even with people who do recognize her. >> sometimes i'm in a boardroom or i'm in situations where i'm the only woman, i'm the only
african-american person within, you know, 100-mile radius and i can see in the energy of the people there, they don't sense that i should be holding one of those seats. i can sense that. >> you? >> yeah. of course. i can sense it. but i can never tell, is it racism, is it sexism? because often it's both. when we come back, the great melissa harris perry will join me to talk about this and much more. t cash back. i'm here to help you get the most out of your cash rewards. it's personalized, and it's free. i want that. we have a concierge! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with cashback concierge. i don't do any cleaning. i make dirt. ♪ i'm not big enough or strong enough for this. there should be some way to make it easier. [ doorbell rings ] [ morty ] here's a box, babe. open it up. oh my goodness! what is a wetjet? some kind of a mopping device.
there's a lot of dirt on here. morty, look at how easy it is. it's almost like dancing. [ both humming ] this is called the swiffer dance. wit's hard to find contractors with the passion and the skill, and that's why we use angie's list. online or on the phone, we help you hire right the first time with honest reviews on over 720 local services. i want it done right. i don't want to have to worry about it or have to come back and redo it. with angie's list, i was able to turn my home into the home of my dreams.
for over 18 years, we've helped people take care of the things that matter most. join today. [ beeping ] ♪ [ male announcer ] we don't just certify our pre-owned vehicles. we inspect, analyze and recondition each one, until it's nothing short of a genuine certified pre-owned... mercedes-benz for the next new owner. ♪ hurry in to your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for 1.99% financing during our certified pre-owned sales event through september 3rd. pre-owned sales event sleep traiends sunday! interest-free for 3 event it's your last chance to get 3 years interest-free financing on beautyrest black, stearns & foster,
serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic. plus, get free delivery and sleep train's 100-day low price guarantee. but hurry, sleep train's interest-free for 3 event ends sunday! superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed! ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ i could have had the big blowup thing and thrown down the black card and all that stuff, but why do that? that clearly is, you know -- >> it still exists. >> of course it does. >> yep. racism still exists. even, even if you're oprah winfrey which is kind of an
amazing thing. that was the media mogul recalling a recent incident at an upscale swiss boutique in which a store clerk refused to show winfrey an expensive bag. joining me, melissa harris perry, host of her own show that airs on weekends pat 10:00 a.m. on msnbc. very food to sgood to see you. >> thanks, ezra. >> you have oprah winfrey in a designer shop in zurich for tina turner's wedding, looking at a bag for $38,000. it doesn't get more 1% than that, yet the race here or something still trumped that socioeconomic status, right? she's in that store. i'm sure she looks great, but race still sort of trumped it. >> hour. i want to be careful on a bunch of things here. so one is we're now talking about race in an international context. now we're talking about another country. and one of the things to remember about race is that race is not a biological reality. it is socially constructed. and so even what race means in italy, in switzerland, in france, is really quite
different than what race means here. i could give you a whole syllabus on that, but i won't. what i think is maybe more interesting than the actual interaction, which could have been a whole variety of things although certainly skin color is part of it, is the reaction of so many of us in the u.s. media, the kind of jaw-dropping sense of what? even oprah winfrey experiences this? and that is, you know, both the sort of, as you pointed out, the 1%er problem. the privileged class. the idea maybe it's difficult to buy my $38,000 handbag which, of course, would buy you four houses in detroit these days. you know, like where we're worried about this kind of 1%er experience, but on the other hand it is, it reflects back some of what the president did in his solidarity with trayvon martin where he says part of what this tells us is that respectability, that class, that income, that achievement and accomplishment does not in the end wipe away the realities of
racial unequinequality. >> but, this is what i find to be so valuable about these testimonies recently. both president obama's and winfreys which is there's this idea of sort of, you know, people getting sorted a little bit. these folks are good, these are bad. you can tell these people are climbing up and these are not. there's not. folks come, they look all kinds of way and still get essentialized in this way. >> this is a very old part of sort of a civil rights movement that goes all the way back to the turn of the century when much of the initial responses, i'll just tell you the story again of plessy v. ferguson, that establishes separate but equal. actually has to tell the train conductor that he's breaking the color barrier at that time. and part of what these initial civil rights movements were, all the way back to the turn of the 20th century was about this question of whether or not those who were respectable enough and wealthy enough to buy first-class passage on trains could, would, in fact, be allowed to sit with their class
or if they would be expected to sit with their race. and what we've seen over and over again in the american context, and of course this didn't happen in the u.s., but in the american context is that race ends up trumping class. in ways that for the most part have deleterious effects for african-americans. >> melissa harris perry. catch melissa's show this weekend at 10:00 a.m. on msnbc. the "rachel maddow show" begins now. >> happy friday. you did a great job this week. thanks to you at home for staying with us the next hour. happy friday. this is russian president vladimir putin. well, this is russian president vladimir putin and an adorable fuzzy puppy dog. so cute. hi. sorry. vladimir putin, as we have docu-look. oh. as we have documented on this show before, vladimir puttin likes to be photographed with animals. he likes to b s